Bibliographic record
Abstract
Produced between 1861 and 1866, the Penfield Extra resembles many nineteenth-century newspapers, with a notable exception. Nellie Williams, the paper’s founder and editor, began publishing her hometown weekly newspaper at the age of twelve. While her paper incorporates conventional modes of nineteenth-century journalism, it also disrupts this association through its indicators of a child’s gender, age, and self-expression. The resulting juxtapositions and fissures—between the editor embracing mainstream journalism and foregrounding her creative agency as a child—present a compelling window on child authorship during a tumultuous time in American history. This tension, moreover, exemplifies the ways by which children’s acts of authorship can dramatically unsettle cultural attitudes regarding children’s innocence and separateness from adult culture. The fact that Williams wrote and published amidst the culture-exploding Civil War was not coincidental. Drawing on established discourses and journalistic conventions while emphasising her free play as child author and newsmaker, Nellie’s Extra mimics cultural conventions and literary discourses requiring children’s obedience and innocence while also modeling the importance of children’s independent political engagement and their capacity to talk back to power.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.045 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".